James Kell has written an excellent and concerning article at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's (ASPI's) The Strategist, dated October 13, 2021, titled "Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines should be built in America."
The article is very good on economies possible from US mass production (more than 2 new subs per year) something Adelaide will never achieve.
Though the UK has been building nuclear subs since the 1960s the UK had/has considerable difficulties building Astute-class SSNs (see this and a 2011 Study). With no nuclear submarine building experience Australia should be prepared for worse in an Adelaide build.
James Kell comments on the extreme cost of of Virginia-class SSNs:
"After a 17,500-man-year design investment, the sail-away cost of an American-made Virginia-class submarine currently stands at $4.8 billion. Generally, the total program cost (including things like support facilities in Australia) is 1.5 to 2 times the sail-away cost. This puts the total program cost per American-built submarine between $6.7 billion and $9.6 billion. Having them made in Australia will add billions to this figure, with a current upper estimate of $14 billion per boat. Going by our recent experience with the Attack class, and observing Wright’s Law, the final figure could be well beyond this."
See James Kell's whole article.
PETE COMMENT
Although the above figures are in Australian dollars they may become US dollars after Adelaide's production costs are factored in.
"Sail-away cost" may include the cost of a totally transformed Adelaide shipyard capable of nuclear safe submarine production and extensive new nuclear safety facilities at Australia's main submarine base in south Perth.
Items not yet counted may be the cost of training 1,000s of nuclear engineer maintainers, scientists and submariners, spares, upgrades, minor and major maintenance. One or more on-shore training reactors may turn out to be essential. Decommissiong nuclear subs can coast more than building them.
Also likely needed would be a new submarine forward base on Australia's east coast. This assumes Sydneysiders will not put up with nuclear submarines at the current forward base in Sydney Harbour. Finding another east coast community happy to host a nuke sub forward base will be an interesting exercise.
13 comments:
a very timely article. Yes indeed, including the 'Aussieization' costs the sail away final cost of a Australian Astute-Virginia mix could well touch US$ 12-15 billion per boat and more considering the telescoping effect of inflation...
if my memory serves me right UK has not dismantled a single naval reactor, 12 retired n-subs are stored at Devonport and 7 at Rosyth in Scotland
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707
lots of costly decisions with effects lasting nearly century await australia...
PS: India might go the French and Russian way of dismantling when the Arihants become due to retire by 2050.
Hi Pete,
An article about the Collins LOTE Will Saab expertise bolster the Collins upgrade program?
/Kjell
Hi Pete
Hakugei (white whale), the second ship of Taigei-class had launched on October 14. Commission of Hakugei will be 2023 May (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HwYuqFvGBA).
BTW, LDP (Liberal Democratic Party, ruling political party in Japan), whose election promise includes improvement of defense capability, will definitely win the general election in Japan.
Regards
Hi Ghalib
Thanks for https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707.
Its a sad story of rusting submarines abandoned in a UK city - subs which contain literally tons of High Level Nuclear Waste from Britains submarine nuclear reactors.
Australian Governments have attempted in vain to persuade the public to build a LOW level nuclear waste dump out in the Australian desert.
One can only imagine how much harder it will be for Australians to accept a HIGH level nuclear waste dump for tons of High level waste from Aus sub nuclear reactors.
Pete
Interesting the Japanese boat. LIB and apparently structural improvements on the Soryu class.
The more i read on the AUKUS / Nuclear boat stuff, the more i think that the "18mths" of deciding a way ahead is going to wind up where we do the Collins LOTE and end up building / assembling Swedish, Japanese or German conventional boats in Adelaide as replacements. Nukes are very, very expensive, we wont have the infrastructure to maintain them, and probably wont be able to find the crews for them.
Fine, host UK or US boats here, but i think the RAN will wind up being a complementary capability to those. The hilarious thing is that if we really wanted nukes the French boats, with their LEU reactors and smaller crews would probably have been the way to go. Govt certainly bollixed that one up. :(
Thanks /Kjell [your Oct 15, 2021, 3:10:00 AM]
For "Will Saab expertise bolster the Collins upgrade program?" By Julian Kerr, Sydney, October 14, 2021 https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/will-saab-expertise-bolster-the-collins-upgrade-program
So the Collins Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program (Project CN62) for the Collins involves " a two-year upgrade for each Collins boat on reaching 30 years of service – the first in May 2026"
If it involves the $2 Billion per Collins from the 2020s and $2 Billion per Collins AGAIN from the late 2030s:
- to replace "three of the major systems on the Collins – main motor, diesel generators and electrical distribution systems"
and
- "combat, sonar, and periscope systems"
and Australia will need to do this twice to keep the Collins running to the 2050s.
Then it sounds as pricy and complex as we can expect from Adelaide.
INSTEAD
Time to build 6 x 4,000 tonne KSS-3's (with LIBs, AIP and VLS) that would be cheaper and more effective into the 2050s?
Pete
Thanks Anonymous [Your Oct 15, 2021, 9:56:00 AM]
Regarding launch of Hakugei (white whale), the second ship of Taigei-class on October 14, 2021.
I have updated the Oyashio/Soryu/Taigei table at "Total Cost Table for Japanese Sub Main Batteries: Taigei Table" https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/06/total-cost-table-for-japanese-submarine.html
Also thankyou for the tip on Japan's LDP to win the next election. "improvement of defense capability" will mean a higher budget for defense.
Regards
Pete
Pete
Due to the original problems with Collins & govt failure to allow ASC to fix them without an external review (taking time) that eventually agreeded with ASC, Collins is actually in very good shape for their age. They have not had anywhere near the dive cycles you would expect. Getting 40 years in total out of these is doable (not much happened in the first 10 years). Collins can still match it with the best SSK’s out there. That was the problem with the Japanese bid (in some ways Collins was actually better). Collins was bleeding edge for its time. Now it’s mainstream. The LOTE will keep Collins up there. Don’t forget SAAB has actually involved ASC engineers in its bid for new submarines for Netherlands. They are looking at 3,000t plus submarines, using both A26 & Collins as a reference.
So no, Collins has some life in them yet. They badly need new engines (part of the LOTE) & upgraded sensors will keep them relevant. They are already capable of firing Tomahawk missiles (torpedo tube as per Astute) if Australia were to obtain them.
Thanks Anonymous [at Oct 15, 2021, 8:51:00 PM]
I respect your hands-on familiarity with the condition of the Collins. This is in contrast to my admittedly accustomed secondary source negativity.
Good that the Collins still have many dive cycles in them.
The Collin's advanced US Combat system must help.
If the LOTE means those Hedemora diesels will be replaced with MTUs then thats good news. Interesting Aus may at last take up the opotion of torpedo tube fired Tomahawks in the Collins.
Also interesting ASC engineers may have been involved in Saab's Netherlands bid.
With Naval Group (NG) losing the Aus order Australia can no longer unintentionally cross subsidize a low Shortfin bid for the Netherlands' competition.
Regards
Pete
Hi PhiltheGeek
Welcome to Submarine Matters.
Yes the AUKUS nuke sub idea may fall over especially if a Labor-Greens coalition win the next Federal Election around March-April 2022.
Swedish, Japanese, German or South Korean conventional boats built in Adelaide might yet be the go instead of Aus Nuke Subs. 7-8 nuke sub crews woukld be a big ask for Aus given 4 smaller Collins crews (including Commanders) have been difficuly to assemble.
LEU Barracuda or not I think the French acted too opaquely European for Aus's Anglo traditions.
Regards
Pete
I suppose exactly what is proposed for the Collins Class LOTE is not actually defined as yet. But, have read that its likely to be Main Motor, New Diesels, and "electrical system upgrades". With LIB batteries actually now at sea, seems to me it would make sense to use LIB's on the Collins?? Would hold a lot more energy, as well as charging and discharging faster at need.
Anyone know any technical impediments to that??
Upgraded Collins (LIB's, sensor/combat system updates) would be a pretty versatile and formidable boat i think. And if you really want to complicate things and blow the budget get SAAB to help design a plug with a couple of multi round VLS canisters that can take the latest gen of hyper sonic missiles from the US?? :)
A number of earlier postings on this site asserted that neither the US nor UK have the production capacity to build an Australian SSN. It has also been asserted that it would take at least 15 years to build an SSN in Australia. Additionally, it has been pointed out that customization of an SSN design for Australia is prohibitively costly.
I assume that the SSN decision has been made due to China's increasing belligerence, so the requirement is fairly near term.
I am not an expert, but if I assume the above constraints are real, I get the impression that the point is to significantly increase deterrence capability (with respect to China) in the medium term. This limits options quite a bit.
1. The remaining only near term SSN option is leasing Los Angeles class subs with mixed US/Australian crews. Trafalgar class are few in number, and also require large crews.
2. Give up on SSN altogether: The SSN arm of the AUKUS would be limited to US and UK, and Australia would take other roles, perhaps taking on additional maritime patrol aircraft or something else.
AUKUS has limited resources to maximize deterrent capability in a short time frame. Perhaps some missions fit some members of the alliance than others. If more time is wasted in the Collins replacement fiasco, the more option 2 becomes the ONLY option on the table, so while interesting discussions may take place on nice submarines for the post-Xi Jinping era, the real strategic issue here is what can be done for the next decade (timing determined by China), and if indeed there is any choice here at all. You go to ??? with the navy you have, not the one you wish you had.
One possibility *I* can still imagine is Australia could station submarines at Manus Island (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apec-summit-port-idUSKCN1NM06X) and significantly improve time on station. *Questions to smart people here*: Would that work with rebuilt Collins subs, at least until next gen subs become available? With favorable outcome in Philippine elections, would Subic Bay work? (Minimally, with a emergency depot ship to refuel/rearm subs?)
An even more remote possibility (assuming brilliant diplomacy) is for Australia to subsidize Vietnam or other potential local allies to buy off the shelf SSK's. The closer the allies are to China, the less exotic the submarines need to be.
Inviting Vietnam into a democratic alliance against China would have humorous implications, but if Turkey can be a member of Nato and Hungary in Nato and EU, this should also be imaginable if you squint right.
Another possibility for China breakout scenario: If Australia is acting with AUKUS, Australian SSK's can be based in Guam.
Post a Comment